Public radio decides it’s time to chase trolls away

NPR says that it will "more aggressively" moderate user comments on NPR.org. …

NPR says that its editors and staff have reached their limit with some of the user comments that appear on NPR.org's printed stories and blogs. "We've recently observed a significant increase in the amount of spam in the comments as well as comments from some individuals who participate simply to anger or insult other community members," the Inside NPR blog noted on Wednesday.

Hence the organization "will more aggressively" moderate subscriber responses on the site. New registrants who wish to post comments on the radio service's webpages will go through a vetting process, conducted by a team of community managers. The latter will enforce NPR's Community Discussion Rules, the short version of which can be summarized as follows:

Be polite

Don't use obscene words

Stay on topic

Don't ramble, and

Report trolls, but don't respond to their posts

Once a new user "has established a reputation for following the commenting guidelines all of his comments will appear immediately after posting," Inside NPR explains. "Community managers will only review comments in response to a specific report from other community members."

As for existing users, about two percent "who have demonstrated a history of breaking the discussion rules," will have their comments scrutinized. Once these "consistently adhere" to the community rules, "we'll stop reviewing their comments before they are posted."

Appalling things

This new policy has been a while in coming. In October, NPR noted that the site had grown to 350,000 registered participants, and thus needed a little help moderating comments, particularly with trolls who come "to wreak havoc in discussions." Hence, the media organization brought in Canadian-based ICUC Moderation Services to assist.

NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard insists that the newest move wasn't prompted by subscriber "vitriol" in reaction to NPR's coverage of the attack on CBS Correspondent Lara Logan in Cairo. But those responses obviously vexed the organization. Some NPR.org users said "appalling things online" about the case, Shepard complained, "so ugly, in fact," that staff took down dozens of anonymous remarks that appeared on an NPR blog about the situation.

Among them: "Those dirty Muslims. Now I know why their women wear burkas. It's because the men can't control themselves." And: "They're Arabs, what do you expect? They're nasty people from the dirtiest place on earth."

Face-to-face

Since October, NPR.org's registration total has grown to a total of 450,000 subscribers, the new procedures announcement discloses. In a recent blog post Shepard suggested that the network should go even further in moderating discussion.

"I am a strong advocate of doing away with anonymous comments," she wrote on Friday. "I often wonder what the dialogue might be like in a face-to-face setting, if people would be so harsh or make personal attacks."

News organizations are struggling with the anonymous comment question. Last year Arianna Huffington of the eponymous Huffington Posttold The New York Times that the "trend is away from anonymity."

But even as The Washington Post announced plans to revise its comments policy, the Post's ombudsman Andrew Alexander noted that anonymity provides "necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard."

180 Reader Comments

It's a tough position. I love being able to comment on things without having to make account name Entegy #3251511353427649. But some anonymity is needed as per the example pointed out. I guess the answer would be more moderation, hoping it wouldn't come down to mod abuse.

Moderation is more about keeping the conversation on track, not censorship. If done correctly -- like a vast majority of other web sites -- moderation works. Sure, it can be abused, but those are few and far between.

It's not censorship since you don't have any right to post whatever you want on any site you want. You still have to abide by their rules. It's not like they are preventing you from speaking your mind - the internet is full of ways to voice your opinion.

Nearly every board I'm on, including this one, moderates comments. How is this any different?

Firstly and most importantly its an organization funded by taxpayer dollars (and private donations of course). Free speech is not guaranteed on private websites, but you get into a sticky situation when you start censoring comments on a government funded website.

The only thing that makes this notable is that it is National Public Radio doing the censorship. I understand their motives but find it ironic.

Moderation on Ars is completely up to Caesar; it is a private company and they can do whatever they want in the confines of what the market will bear. NPR is a whole different type of organization that was started by the government and is at least now significantly funded still by tax dollars.

The only thing that makes this notable is that it is National Public Radio doing the censorship. I understand their motives but find it ironic.

Moderation on Ars is completely up to Caesar; it is a private company and they can do whatever they want in the confines of what the market will bear. NPR is a whole different type of organization that was started by the government and is at least now significantly funded still by tax dollars.

5.8% by federal, state, and local taxes plus another 10% by cpb is hardly significant.

Well, it's something like 3% if you're talking about direct funding, or 40% if you include the tax value of charitable gifts and the like (which is a bit of a stretch, as then you could say almost all churches are funded by the .gov, etc).

It's not censorship since you don't have any right to post whatever you want on any site you want. You still have to abide by their rules. It's not like they are preventing you from speaking your mind - the internet is full of ways to voice your opinion.

You do realize this is an organization partly run with public funds (aka, taxpayer money). Thus obligatory rules, especially those surrounding free speech, are not up for discussion. NPR has to walk a very fine line here. This is not in any way equivalent to a site like Ars, which is owned by a corporation.

The other option is to do away with any public funding altogether. That would be a major game changer in terms of what rules must be followed.

NPR is a whole different type of organization that was started by the government and is at least now significantly funded still by tax dollars.

5.8% by federal, state, and local taxes plus another 10% by cpb is hardly significant.

I love how NPR advocates always choose to ignore billions in market value of the frequencies given for free to local NPR stations. I say we put 'em up for auction, and see what happens.

The other funny thing is how NPR-droids tell you in one breath that taxpayer funding is insignificant, and in the next howl and scream bloody murder whenever the topic of defunding NPR comes up at this time of deficit...

... which means that every single dollar wasted on NPR today will be coming out of your kids and grandkids taxes, when they have to pay for deficit debts accumulated today. Think of the children!

Yeah, this is why the NPR CEO is thankful to Obama, esp. considering elections are coming up:

Quote:

The President's FY 2012 budget submission to Congress included $451 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) for the two year advance appropriation for FY 2014, an increase of $6 million over FY 2013 funding.

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller said, "We are grateful to the Obama Administration

Well, it's something like 3% if you're talking about direct funding, or 40% if you include the tax value of charitable gifts and the like (which is a bit of a stretch, as then you could say almost all churches are funded by the .gov, etc).

NPR is a whole different type of organization that was started by the government and is at least now significantly funded still by tax dollars.

5.8% by federal, state, and local taxes plus another 10% by cpb is hardly significant.

I love how NPR advocates always choose to ignore billions in market value of the frequencies given for free to local NPR stations. I say we put 'em up for auction, and see what happens.

The other funny thing is how NPR-droids tell you in one breath that taxpayer funding is insignificant, and in the next howl and scream bloody murder whenever the topic of defunding NPR comes up at this time of deficit...

... which means that every single dollar wasted on NPR today will be coming out of your kids and grandkids taxes, when they have to pay for deficit debts accumulated today. Think of the children!

NPR tax-funding is $3.9 million out of a budget of $164 million - which is 6%. I hardly see how that's a crippling cost to our children and grandchildren given the trillions we've spent on the wars.

Well, it's something like 3% if you're talking about direct funding, or 40% if you include the tax value of charitable gifts and the like (which is a bit of a stretch, as then you could say almost all churches are funded by the .gov, etc).

Don't they also get special exemptions and broadcast rights?

The lowest block of frequencies are reserved for public broadcasters off all types, including university and high school radio stations. In my area that bock has an NPR news station, two music channels run by the same broadcaster (one plays orchestral the other independent, world music and jazz) plus a local high school on another frequency.

Censorship as declared by the Bill of Rights means government can’t prevent you from saying anything, nor can they arrest you for saying anything. It doesn’t mean government needs to provide you with the mechanism. People who get censored from NPR's site can surely say the exact same thing on privately-owned sites without government going after them there.

NPR is a whole different type of organization that was started by the government and is at least now significantly funded still by tax dollars.

5.8% by federal, state, and local taxes plus another 10% by cpb is hardly significant.

I love how NPR advocates always choose to ignore billions in market value of the frequencies given for free to local NPR stations. I say we put 'em up for auction, and see what happens.

The other funny thing is how NPR-droids tell you in one breath that taxpayer funding is insignificant, and in the next howl and scream bloody murder whenever the topic of defunding NPR comes up at this time of deficit...

... which means that every single dollar wasted on NPR today will be coming out of your kids and grandkids taxes, when they have to pay for deficit debts accumulated today. Think of the children!

the numbers i posted are for member stations during fy 2008. i don't recall saying that npr should still receive public funding, nor do i recall saying i was an npr advocate. but you've made it clear where you stand, however unsolicited. congratulations?

Yeah, this is why the NPR CEO is thankful to Obama, esp. considering elections are coming up:

Quote:

The President's FY 2012 budget submission to Congress included $451 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) for the two year advance appropriation for FY 2014, an increase of $6 million over FY 2013 funding.

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller said, "We are grateful to the Obama Administration

The President's FY 2012 budget submission to Congress included $451 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) for the two year advance appropriation for FY 2014, an increase of $6 million over FY 2013 funding.

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller said, "We are grateful to the Obama Administration

I have frequently read (and contributed) to the comments over at NPR and I am overjoyed that they've decided to moderate. The ability to comment on an article, as well as responding to other commentators, can spark some pretty interesting conversation. Heck, I love a good debate. But debates require some sort of moderation to keep things civil and on track.

It's a tough position. I love being able to comment on things without having to make account name Entegy #3251511353427649. But some anonymity is needed as per the example pointed out. I guess the answer would be more moderation, hoping it wouldn't come down to mod abuse.

The President's FY 2012 budget submission to Congress included $451 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) for the two year advance appropriation for FY 2014, an increase of $6 million over FY 2013 funding.

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller said, "We are grateful to the Obama Administration

cpb is funded by the federal government, npr by member stations. the numbers i give (http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont ... out_np.php) state that in 2008, 10% of the funding for those npr member stations came from cpb. i can't find anything in that statement you posted that says NPR, not CPB or "public broadcasting", receiving some percentage, though it probably does, of that 451 million. can you point it out for me?

NPR tax-funding is $3.9 million out of a budget of $164 million - which is 6%

Dude, the propaganda-political complex is more than just the NPR budget.

1. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets $451 million, which then provides subsidized programming to NPR in addition to direct taxpayer funding transfers.2. The NPR stations get their frequencies for free. If auctioned off, these would bring in billions and billions in government revenue to help balance today's deficit budgeting.3. NPR itself gets an additional 6% in direct taxpayer funding4. NPR gets an additional 14% from universities which get a large share of government funding, when not 100% of it.

Because these interests are so insidiously entrenched and overlapping, that's why you see the love letters from the NPR CEO to Obama when he increases CPB taxpayer funding.

Publicly-funded information. My god, man, do you realize what could happen? If we let the Propaganda-Political Complex continue to expand, we might someday have something equivalent in quality to the BBC! News, Everywhere! Quality Programming! The Horror! The Horror!

The President's FY 2012 budget submission to Congress included $451 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) for the two year advance appropriation for FY 2014, an increase of $6 million over FY 2013 funding.

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller said, "We are grateful to the Obama Administration

i can't find anything in that statement you posted that says NPR, not CPB or "public broadcasting", receiving some percentage, though it probably does, of that 451 million. can you point it out for me?

As the government-propaganda complex is an entrenched cesspool of taxpayer-sucking cross-interests, I can't be bothered to look beyond this wikipedia source:

Quote:

Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Nearly every board I'm on, including this one, moderates comments. How is this any different?

I've seen troll comments on this board. I just get use to ignoring them.

On Topic:

NPR should have always been moderating their comments. I think that most commenting boards don't initially censor because they don't have the staff. Given the fact that NPR draws so much hatred from the right, I'm surprised its taken this long.

The thing is, if we censor trolls, are we really losing anything valueable?

Depends on your definition of a "troll", most people call you a troll for espousing a different set of beliefs than them, except for in some gaming related sites, true trolls rarely exist, what you have are opinion differences.

One could argue that what NPR is doing will be based on opinion and not the true definition of a troll, if the "needed" to start moderating comments due to the Egypt thing, and most examples listed in the article might be crude but fairly spot on, then NPR will just refuse to post anything they consider contrarian to their agenda.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.